About your Search

20130416
20130424
Search Results 0 to 8 of about 9
miranda rights to the boston bombing suspect. but once they do, if they do, it changes a whole lot. and we have breaking news on this. moments ago, guess who wants to represent the defendant? we'll tell you next. >>> plus, the now dead suspect has recently -- had recently promoted the rantings of a radical cleric who calls on children to defend islam, and to be taught there is nothing better than wanting to die as a martyr. we'll ask who the shaikh is and find out what was posted on the older brother's youtube channel which are chilling. and do you know your... blood type? a or b positive?? have you eaten today? i had some lebanese food for lunch. i love the lebanese. i... i'm not sure. enough of the formalities... lets get started shall we? jimmy how happy are folks who save hundreds of dollars switching to geico? happier than dracula volunteering at a blood drive. we have cookies... get happy. get geico. fifteen minutes could save you fifteen percent or more. polaris has what you wan legdary atvs led by the powerful sportsman 850 ho. value-minded side-by-sides featuring the new ranger 80
't -- he shouldn't be mirandaized right away. i know you agree with them. >> i think the miranda issue is an easier issue. he doesn't have to be mar lindaized for a lot of reason. first of all, they have enough evidence to convict him without getting a confession from him. all miranda gets you is a confession you can use in court. you can use that information for everything else. remember, he confessed already to the guy they kidnapped. the guy he kidnapped says, these two guys told us, we did the bombing. they got great witness and they got a great confession. maybe even better than a law enforcement confession where you can claim it was forced out of you. they gave a upon takenious confession -- spontaneous confession. >> bob wants to get in here. so then why did they need to make that statement? i'm trying to figure out why they made that statement? >> i don't know exactly why they made it. maybe because they got so much criticism -- remember the christmas morning bomber that they mirandaized right away, lost the opportunity to get information from him? so i think maybe they were pl
be read his miranda rights. moving past the politics of it because it seems to get a little poe lit kal, as a former member of fbi how does whether or not the suspect is read his miranda rights influence or impact your investigation? >> it really becomes irrelevant. good report-based interviewers and interrogators who are the ones most effective. the fbi doesn't do that because we're nice. we do that because it worked. in reported based interviewers miranda they can read that and continue. it is not a major obstacle. it is almost irrelevant. jenna: really? we're hearing a it is a major issue whether we get to the bottom of this investigation. so what should we consider as we continue to hear the debate ongoing over the next several days? >> it doesn't, it really doesn't make that much difference to the interviewers and especially the particular group of profile he is -- profilers they developed at quantico, at the fbi academy. this is not terribly relevant. they can sit down with the people. they can interview them. they look for behavioral cues. they look for a way to establish a relat
analyst. the 19-year-old has not been read his miranda rights. why does this matter what has it allowed for? what is the issue here? >> a lot of variables here, the question is he in any kwan condition to answer questions with or without miranda? what is his health situation? also, even if he doesn't get miranda warnings, he may decline to answer questions in any case. they can't force him to answer questions, but if he does not receive miranda warnings and if he then anticipates questions those answers cannot be used in a criminal case against him. they can be used for intelligence gathering. they can be used if there are other conspirators who may be prosecuted, can't be used against him. other evidence can be used against him. may be lots of other evidence. if you don't get miranda warnings, your statements i can't be used against you. >> so this is a sensitive issue. another sensitive issue raised by republican senators, lindsey graham, kelly ayotte, peter king, they released a statement, the suspect, based upon his actions, clearly is a good candidate for enemy combat tant status.
federal government has done the right thing. when ints that somehow suspects have right to counsel miranda warnings causes them to stop cooperating with law enforcement is not facts and studies. and ct, d.o.j. officials senior law enforcement officials 90% of the ou 80% to time in sophisticated cases when defense counsel get involved to help emhis more and icit more information allow the case to go forward. there have been multiple cases 9/11 that have been prosecuted, investigated and prosecuted by law enforcement resulted in more information available to law lawful tools ing without needing to violate rights. senator mentioned graham. he pushed against the decision the combatant status. [video clip] >> i hope the congress will at this case and look at our laws and come to the to.lusion that i have come we are at war. for a going to be at war very long time and we have to have the tools to defend values.es within our one of those tools is the ability to question people about future attacks to gather intelligence for national purposes without benefit of counsel. the information will neve
with the questions out receiving miranda warnings but the only downside is that his statements may not be used against him at trial. this is not much of a risk when you consider the other available evidence including photo images of him at the scene of the bombings and his own reported confession to the victim whose car he helped hijack during the last week's terror in boston. . but if your concern is over the larger threat in who the tsarnaev brothers were and are, what they did and what they represent, then worry a lot. for starters, you you can worry about how the high-value intergage group or h.i.g., will do its work. that unit was finally put in place by the f.b.i. after so-called underwear bomber tried to blow up the airplane in which he was traveling as it flew over detroit on christmas day, 2009. and was advise of his mir and da rights. the c.i.a. interrogation program that might have handleled the interview had by then been dismantled by president obama. at the behest of such muslim brotherhood affiliated groups as the council on american islamic relations, and the islamic society of
with american citizens. it allows the justice department to delay reading a suspect his miranda rights if doing so is in the interest of -- quote -- "public safety." the administration had rightly invoked this public safety exception in the case of the boston suspect which provided our national security professionals a discreet period of time to gather intelligence from the suspect without the presence of his lawyer. however, soon after questioning him this way, the administration recently reversed itself and read the suspect his miranda rights. in doing so, the administration, in my view, gave up a valuable opportunity to lawfully and thoroughly question the suspect for purposes of gathering intelligence about potential future terrorist plots. whether we will be able to acquire such information has now been left entirely at the discretion of the suspect and his lawyer. put simply, the suspect has been told he has the right to remain silent, and if he doesn't want to provide intelligence, he doesn't have to. is this a responsible balance between a citizen's rights and our national security? the
minutes. i do not care if you read people their miranda rights, but do not shut down the intelligence gathering process. on the way he agreed to cooperate is the fbi flew to his family and his parents convinced him. hadtimes square bomber, he pakistan taliban ties and was read his miranda -- render rights and we never interrogating him for intelligence gathering purpose. osama bin laden's father-in-law was never designate and -- and an enemy -- son in law was never designated an enemy combatants. can you imagine what he could tell us? he was the spokesman for al qaeda after 9/11. there was a disturbing pattern of not gathering intelligence when that opportunity exists. i will grab a pen and pad and we will go next door and i will answer questions about what you have about the fbi. we're way to observe a moment of silence here for the folks in boston. >> she was very bright, very political, which is why she and lincoln got together in the first place. she spoke several languages fluently. she was extremely well educated. she had all of these things going for her, but she had suffered a
-- the federal system today, was read his miranda rights. he has never been designated. can you imagine what a sum of bin laden's son in law can tell us about the terrorist organization put he was the spokesman after 9/11. there is a disturbing pattern of not gathering intelligence when that opportunity exists. they care very much. i have to go. we will go next door to answer any questions that you have about the act by and we are going to observe a moment of silence for the folks in boston. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] >> stakeholders testified on capitol hill on the immigration bill. john mccain, chuck schumer, dick durbin, lindsey graham, robert menendez, marker rubio, jeff flake, and michael bennett are the architects of the legislation. >> about the problems with the program, and i am happy we will find a way with this improved program to make this work better. sometimes the alphabet soup of immigration programs and the endless rules can get confusing. can one of you explain what you see as the biggest p
Search Results 0 to 8 of about 9